receive copy.
(1) In contested custody proceedings, and in other custody proceedings if a parent or the
child's custodian so requests, the court may order an investigation and report
concerning custodial arrangements for the child. The investigation and report may
be made by the friend of the court or such other agency as the court may select.
(2) In preparing his report concerning a child, the investigator may consult any person
who may have information about the child and his potential custodial arrangements.
Upon order of the court, the investigator may refer the child to professional
personnel for diagnosis. The investigator may consult with and obtain information
from medical, psychiatric, or other expert persons who have served the child in the
past without obtaining the consent of the parent or the child's custodian; but the
child's consent must be obtained if he has reached the age of 16, unless the court
finds that he lacks mental capacity to consent. If the requirements of subsection (3)
are fulfilled, the investigator's report may be received in evidence at the hearing.
(3) The clerk shall mail the investigator's report to counsel and to any party not
represented by counsel at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The investigator shall
make available to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel the
investigator's file of underlying data, and reports, complete texts of diagnostic
reports made to the investigator pursuant to the provisions of subsection (2), and the
names and addresses of all persons whom the investigator has consulted. Any party
to the proceeding may call the investigator and any person whom he has consulted
for cross-examination. A party may not waive his right of cross-examination prior
to the hearing.
History: Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 20.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014).
Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014).
· cites it 6× “Our conclusion that the trial court erred by accepting into evidence the GAL’s report but then denying Morgan’s request to cross-examine the GAL does not end our analysis.”
Bond v. Bond, 887 S.W.2d 558 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “ot alternatively considering joint custody; (4) The court erred in not allowing questions regarding the sexual relationship between Burhl and his girlfriend; (5) The court erred in not requiring mediation prior to litigation; (6) The court erred in allowing the court-appointed…”
Lewis v. Lewis, 534 S.W.2d 800 (Ky. 1976).
· cites it 6× “The two questions raised on appeal are (1) whether the court erroneously failed to comply with KRS 403.300 in admitting reports by social workers concerning which parent should have custody of the child, and (2) whether the award of custody to the .”
Stone v. Glass, 35 S.W.3d 827 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).
“issues of liability and damages; 2) erred in its refusal to allow Stone to introduce evidence subsequent to August 31, 1992, the date of the Pulaski Circuit Court’s issuance of its original findings of fact; 3) erred in prohibiting Stone from presenting evidence of damages; 4)…”
Hardin v. Hardin, 711 S.W.2d 863 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
“290 and KRS 403.300. Appellant also contends that the court erred in failing to give her an opportunity to purchase the marital residence or in the alternative in failing to award interest on her share of the equity.”
Michael Greene v. Elizabeth Boyd (Ky. 2020).
· cites it 20× “We also hold that a family court’s appointment of an FOC to investigate and generate a report under KRS 403.300 amounts to a determination that the FOC is sufficiently qualified to offer opinion evidence concerning the fitness of a parent and child’s custody arrangements.”
Blaine Van Gansbeke v. Bridget F. Van Gansbeke (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 10× “Because we find merit in Blaine’s argument regarding the family court’s due process violations (as expressed in his first four arguments), his remaining arguments are moot. 1. The family court erred by allowing testimony and admitting report of FOC.”
Lisa Bentley v. Scarlett Etherton (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “The role of the court-appointed FOC in contested custody proceedings is further delineated in KRS 403.300, as follows: -11- (1) In contested custody proceedings, and in other custody proceedings if a parent or the child’s custodian so requests, the court may order an…”
David White v. Aiesha White (Now Cole) (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “” KRS 403.300. The statute does not specifically require inclusion of the investigator’s interviews with the child.”
Joseph Matthew Byrdwell v. Chantele Byrdwell (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “As it relates to investigators appointed by the trial court, KRS 403.300(3) states: The clerk shall mail the investigator’s report to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel at least 10 days prior to the hearing.”
Ann Thrall v. Al Thrall (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “Appellant’s third argument is that the FOC failed to follow the court’s orders regarding the FOC’s duties set out in KRS 403.300, and that the court improperly utilized the FOC’s recommendations.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.300(1) — 3 cases
Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014).
“Our conclusion that the trial court erred by accepting into evidence the GAL’s report but then denying Morgan’s request to cross-examine the GAL does not end our analysis.”
Ann Thrall v. Al Thrall (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“Appellant’s third argument is that the FOC failed to follow the court’s orders regarding the FOC’s duties set out in KRS 403.300, and that the court improperly utilized the FOC’s recommendations.”
Blaine Van Gansbeke v. Bridget F. Van Gansbeke (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“Because we find merit in Blaine’s argument regarding the family court’s due process violations (as expressed in his first four arguments), his remaining arguments are moot. 1. The family court erred by allowing testimony and admitting report of FOC.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.300(2) — 3 cases
Michael Greene v. Elizabeth Boyd (Ky. 2020).
“We also hold that a family court’s appointment of an FOC to investigate and generate a report under KRS 403.300 amounts to a determination that the FOC is sufficiently qualified to offer opinion evidence concerning the fitness of a parent and child’s custody arrangements.”
Blaine Van Gansbeke v. Bridget F. Van Gansbeke (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“Because we find merit in Blaine’s argument regarding the family court’s due process violations (as expressed in his first four arguments), his remaining arguments are moot. 1. The family court erred by allowing testimony and admitting report of FOC.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.300(3) — 9 cases
Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014).
“Our conclusion that the trial court erred by accepting into evidence the GAL’s report but then denying Morgan’s request to cross-examine the GAL does not end our analysis.”
Lewis v. Lewis, 534 S.W.2d 800 (Ky. 1976).
“The two questions raised on appeal are (1) whether the court erroneously failed to comply with KRS 403.300 in admitting reports by social workers concerning which parent should have custody of the child, and (2) whether the award of custody to the .”
Joseph Matthew Byrdwell v. Chantele Byrdwell (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“As it relates to investigators appointed by the trial court, KRS 403.300(3) states: The clerk shall mail the investigator’s report to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel at least 10 days prior to the hearing.”
Blaine Van Gansbeke v. Bridget F. Van Gansbeke (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“Because we find merit in Blaine’s argument regarding the family court’s due process violations (as expressed in his first four arguments), his remaining arguments are moot. 1. The family court erred by allowing testimony and admitting report of FOC.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.